[QUOTE=peril;913335]Vitamin C is readily available from plants and animals. There is no need for humans to synthesise it while plants and animals oblige[/QUOTE]

Same goes fro all the other essential nutrients that we cannot synthesize... including EFAs.

If it as a case of evolutionary "fail" we wouldn't be sitting here IMO.

07-26-2012, 09:11 PM

PaleoLogicCheck

[QUOTE=cori93437;913339]Same goes fro all the other essential nutrients that we cannot synthesize... including EFAs. [/QUOTE]

Not exactly (more hair splitting). Vitamin C is unique in all of the these 'essential' nutrients in that it's now known it [I][U]once was a nutrient humans could synthesize[/U][/I]. Evolution, apparently, dropped it. Hello scurvy. No worries though, you can still have kids. It's just a quality of life issue. Nothing to worry about, move along.

[QUOTE=cori93437;913339]If it as a case of evolutionary "fail" we wouldn't be sitting here IMO.[/QUOTE]
We're all sitting HERE (@ Marks forum), trying to figure out how to improve our quality of life, which as I just pointed out, isn't of much interest to evolution.

07-26-2012, 09:54 PM

Ethereal

I wish I had more knowledge to contribute properly but I do find this topic interesting. Personally I like to take supplements becasue even if they are topping up my body only the 10% it may be missing from the foods I am eating then I'd rather be running on 100% of those vitamins/minerals etc than on only 90% (example only).

I also wanted to throw out there that I have the understanding that a pregnant woman's body produces vitamin C. Perhaps evolution hasn't completely left us for dead. If our bodies feel they need something our bodies will produce it?

Back on the EFA topic, I LOVE them! I have eczema (which I hope going primal will fix) but taking EFA makes a massive difference to my skin.

07-26-2012, 10:32 PM

cori93437

Relevance?
We cannot synthesize a whole boat load of nutrients that are absolutely necessary for our survival and health.
We must get them from foods.
We cannot change evolution.
It is what it is.

If we had lost the ability to synthesize a nutrient and we were unable to get that nutrient from foods that would have been an evolutionary fail.
The more primally we eat,the more essential nutrients we get from natural sources.
The whole thing seems pretty moot.
By fail I mean we would not exist, we would be extinct...

Thus I disagree with an assessment that the lack of synthesis of any of the necessary nutrients that one can quite easily obtain through a natural diet is an "evolutionary fail" in any way.
To assert so is a bit ridiculous IMO.

Unless... what? Do you think we should be genetically modified to begin synthesizing these nutrients, C in particular?
Ummm... No.

Lack of vitamin C synthesis is actually a VERY common primate trait.
You've completely missed the boat on that one.
And I'm not sure why you've decided to make a special case of it...
[U]" Notably, not only all humans, but also gorillas, chimps, orangutans, and some monkeys have this inborn genetic flaw..."[/U]
As well as some fishes, birds, and other mammals.
[url=http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-mystery-of-vitamin-c-14167861]Vitamin C biosynthesis | Learn Science at Scitable[/url]
I will concede that Vitamin was once a nutrient that ancient human [B]ancestors[/B] could synthesize... [U]homo sapiens as a species has never been capable of synthesizing vitamin C[/U]. As a matter of fact the split where our branch developed the 'broken' gene occurred something like 60mil years ago(give or take)... How does that equal "once was a nutrient humans could synthesize"?

Also missing the boat... scurvy can be [B]deadly[/B], not just unhealthy and inconvenient... seriously.
Where are you getting your info?

07-27-2012, 06:00 AM

Neckhammer

Part of our evolution is efficiency. It allows for further development of other things (like a big brain perhaps). We are omnivores and able to "delegate" things we can't make to the plants and animals that we eat. Hey LOOK AT ME! TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN MOM!

07-27-2012, 09:12 AM

PaleoLogicCheck

@ All,

Thanks for the replies. I started this thread to [I]learn[/I], from other posters. I'm no expert, I'm definitely a student of these things. Even 'credible' experts in the subject should be questioned, new things are constantly learned.

Re-reading the thread this morning, I see I've already made a mistake with it. It's drifting off-topic, mostly due to some of MY replies! I would like to keep it on topic so that it becomes a great place to learn about EFAs.

Ultimately I would like to start a similar thread on the forum for [I][U]every nutrient[/U][/I]. A daunting task no doubt, but let's take our time and thoroughly beat each one into submission before moving on to the next one. If we succeed, it will help Marks site become more popular and we should do what we can for our primal sensei.

Then on through the seemingly endless list of non-caloric nutrients (vitamins, minerals...).

The goal would be to learn, through spirited but polite debate, what dietary requirements (or lack thereof) are optimal for each.

Also, to help keep things on-topic I'll occasionally throw-in thread 'summaries', which I'll do for the first time seperately on this thread in my next post.

07-27-2012, 09:21 AM

quelsen

[QUOTE=PaleoLogicCheck;912032]OK, Ok, the hair-splitting begins....

I think the only definition that we really need to agree on to discuss the straw horse proposal above is:

nutrient - any substance that can be metabolized by an animal to give energy and build tissue

(google'able)

Water does not qualify as a nutrient by this definition, nor would oxygen, CO2,...[/QUOTE]

Clarification:

A nutrient is a chemical that an organism needs to live and grow or a substance used in an organism's metabolism which must be taken in from its environment.They are used to build and repair tissues, regulate body processes and are converted to and used as energy. Methods for nutrient intake vary, with animals and protists consuming foods that are digested by an internal digestive system, but most plants ingest nutrients directly from the soil through their roots or from the atmosphere.

Water is widely used in chemical reactions as a solvent or reactant and less commonly as a solute or catalyst.
Most of the major components in cells (proteins, DNA and polysaccharides) are also dissolved in water.
Water is a good solvent and is often referred to as the universal solvent. Substances that dissolve in water, e.g., salts, sugars, acids, alkalis, and some gases – especially oxygen, carbon dioxide (carbonation) are known as hydrophilic (water-loving) substances, while those that are immiscible with water (e.g., fats and oils), are known as hydrophobic (water-fearing) substances.

without water our cells cannot create energy or describe any shape.
blood would fail to flow
digestion would cease

[I][B]Background[/B][/I]:
* Omega 3 and 6 [B][U]p[/U][/B]oly[B][U]u[/U][/B]nsaturated [B][U]f[/U][/B]atty [B][U]a[/U][/B]cids (PUFAs) are referred to as '[B][U]e[/U][/B]ssential [B][U]f[/U][/B]atty [B][U]a[/U][/B]cids' (EFAs) since humans can't synthesize them from other nutrients. Many nutritional experts claim EFA's should be part of a supplement program, but a few (e.g. Ray Peat) claim eliminating them altogether would be healthier. Arguments from both are usually based on cellular biology/physiology.

[I][B]Evolutionary (Paleo) Perspective From Posters on this Thread[/B][/I]:
* EFA's are no different than the numerous other essential nutrients that the body can't synthesize. The fact that it can't synthesize EFAs should be taken to indicate they were readily available from the evolutionary (paleolithic) diet.

* Evolution is 'biologically efficient' by delegating essential nutrient synthesis (EFAs) to species lower in the food chain where ever possible as this enables other features to develop.

[I][B]Practical Open Questions[/B][/I]:
* How much EFAs are really needed?
* What beneficial role do they support in health?
A1: Ethereal reported they help with skin issues.

07-28-2012, 08:25 AM

PaleoLogicCheck

For all of you aspiring paleoprimatologists, here is a link to a paper that provides a "Primate Baseline":

It's not definitive, but definitely food for thought and a direct hit to this threads topic. It showed me that trying to determine optimal dietary requirements from an evolutionary perspective is a bit more difficult than trying to figure out what Grok ate.

Maybe the cellular biology/physiology perspective is the more practical one after all.

07-28-2012, 08:57 AM

Artbuc

[QUOTE=PaleoLogicCheck;914423]For all of you aspiring paleoprimatologists, here is a link to a paper that provides a "Primate Baseline":

It's not definitive, but definitely food for thought and a direct hit to this threads topic. It showed me that trying to determine optimal dietary requirements from an evolutionary perspective is a bit more difficult than trying to figure out what Grok ate.

Maybe the cellular biology/physiology perspective is the more practical one after all.[/QUOTE]

Wow! Paragraph 4 states CW regarding cholesterol, saturated fat and CHD as though it is self-evidently true and without any controversy whatsoever. I am truly at a loss here. I have eaten a cereal carb heavy diet for decades eschewing saturated fat except for occassional ice cream binges. I have been eating Primal for a couple months now including lots of pastured eggs, grass fed ground beef and cheese/butter from grass fed cows. I would bet anything my cholesterol numbers have gotten much worse, CW wise, but what should I do and whom should I believe?